Rant: Over indulgent parents strike again

In article , Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:

Attitudes that seemed completely unremarkable a couple of decades ago
now look like they came from the 19th century or perhaps the dark ages.
I suggest that from one generation to the next we're becoming more
and more a nation of safety nazis.

I would hate to be a kid now. Dumbed down, locked away from anything
that might hurt them etc. My parents didn't let me do half the stuff
I wanted, but I still got to play with model rockets, electricity,
etc etc. And generally did it without supervision. Although I never
did anything particularly dangerous, most of it is probably disallowed
today.

Only the particularly dumb kids hurt themselves... Like the ones that
found a july 4th dud and decided to hack it open with a hatchet.....

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 19:47:56 GMT, "Cathy Kearns"



"Banty" wrote in message
...
On the other hand, I used to hire a couple of young babysitters (10 year
old
kids who live on my block) to watch my son for an hour or two, provided
that
their parents were in the house too, in case of emergencies (this being
understood with the parents).

So how much do you pay their parents to be "on call"?

Probably not as much as the taxes paid for the ambulance or cops that
the parents would end up calling if there were an emergency.


When the father of one found that I paid a 22
year old babysitter, who sometimes does overnights, more than his 10 year
old,
he got mad and sent his son for 'the difference'. I sent him back. Dad
called.
I told his Dad that, by design of the babysitting job, his boy takes on
considerably less responsibility than the 22 year old - I'm not relying on
the
10 year old for responsible action in emergencies;

It sounds like you are relying on his parents to be responsible for action
in
emergencies.

Wouldn't a neighbor be glad to offer assistance if there were an
emergency? The parents probably never have to lift a finger. Perhaps
they're not interested in being neighborly and view it as purely a
business transaction. If they feel that way, they can ask for money to
be paid just in case they have to dial 911 or something.


he's not on tap to feed my
son; he doesn't have to get him ready for school. So, that was the end
of his
son babysitting. IOW, "no deal".

I offered to be backup when my daughter was younger and was babysitting
friends. However, I would have also been willing to babysit the kids at my
house for free instead. Sure, grown-ups get paid more, but in the case
of the 10 year olds, you did hire grown-ups. If I were you I would look
hard at the responsibility thing. If you are paying less because they
aren't
feeding him, dressing him, or driving him places that's one thing. If you
aren't paying the babysitter as much because they have to depend on their
own parents to backup, then you should also be paying the back up. If
you are paying less because they are watching the kids while you are
busy, but on the premises then that sounds legit.


Banty

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 00:53:52 GMT, Calgary
wrote:

Stressed is just Desserts spelled backwards

No, that would would be stressed tsuj.

"tsuj" being the Hmong Mein dialect group word, (Hmong or Mong are a
tribal people found in Thailand, Loas, Vietnam and China many of whom
have immigrated to the USA), for "silk."

"Stressed Silk" might have some meaning that I'm unaware of, but I'll
keep looking. I've heard of it in relation to painting on silk, and I
believe there is a kind of stressed silk clothing line...but of that I
cannot be sure.

Thanks for the chance to explore with you.

Sig lines are my hobby.

Kane

On 8 Jan 2004 14:26:12 -0800, (Rob
Kleinschmidt)

Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 01:05:03 -0500, Jon Walters
wrote:

About 7-8 teens (12-15) received these motor cycles/scooters
this Christmas and they ride (speed) up and down the street
and don't even use helmets! The law here requires helmets
for bicycles so you'd think the parents would demand they
wear them .... but they (kids) always get "their way" but
this will change when one of them is seriously hurt! They even
ride through this neighborhood at night with no lights attached
to their motor cycles. Where are the parents?

I'll tell you where... they've been stupidified by our nanny
government (both liberal and Konservative) and are incapable of using
common sense. They need someone to pass a law and regulate their lives
otherwise it doesn't occur to them.

I think that's mostly a crock.

As a kid, I remember school sponsered races for home made go-karts.
Typically they'd go maybe 25-30 mph, but most kids could never figure
out how to get the brakes or steering to really work right. Helmets
were of course optional.

Since we were still in the middle of a space race with the Rooshins,
chemistry experiments were also encouraged, do it yourself rocketry
and pyrotechnics. One unfortunate non-sanctioned experiment blew out
a portion of the chem lab and sent a kid to the hospital with shrapnel
wounds when somebody tried to grind dry explosive in a meatgrinder.

When I was a kid, people built pipebombs, but they weren't considered
terrorists just because they wanted to blow up someone's mailbox or
something. (just vandals).


I recall a friend and I used to amuse ourselves by shooting off
homemade rockets made from empty CO2 cartidges. It wasn't until
many years later that it occurred to me to wonder where the things
had been landing.

Attitudes that seemed completely unremarkable a couple of decades ago
now look like they came from the 19th century or perhaps the dark ages.
I suggest that from one generation to the next we're becoming more
and more a nation of safety nazis.

On 8 Jan 2004 15:52:52 -0800, (Rob
Kleinschmidt)

"Marijke" wrote in message . ..
"Jon Walters" wrote in message
...

especially when a 13 year old
wanted $40 to shovel the snow from my sidewalk recently. I
told the kid I'll give him $10 and he walked away. Good. I'll
wait until it melts before I pay that much.

And that's a problem? He offered you a price. You didn't like it. What's
that got to do with spoiled? You both had the option of agreeing to the
deal. You didn't like his price, he didn't like yours. Doesn't business work
like that?

Isn't there a Federal agency that could give him a hand and help him
export the job overseas ?

Well, Bush is working on a plan to allow him to hire a migrant worker
who is willing to do it for $10, most of which will be wired back to his
home country.

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 20:08:04 -0500, Nan wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 00:53:52 GMT, Calgary
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:50:58 -0500, Nan wrote:


Yeah, or they consider it "mindless" and "menial" and not worth paying
someone to take the burden from themselves.

Nan

Here in Calgary there are several companies clearing in excess of a
million per season each pushing that white stuff. And it doesn't snow
a hell of a lot here.

I know several people that do it privately with a snowplow on their
truck and rake in the bucks every winter.

Yup, if you can stay awake, keep the rig out of the ditch and nothin
breaks you can do very well.


84 - Virago 1000
http://www3.telus.net/public/dbinns/

Stressed is just Desserts spelled backwards

In article , Mike Helm says...

On 8 Jan 2004 11:34:11 -0800, (Cathy Weeks)


By the way, *I* might shovel someone's snow for free (if they were
friends, and were unable to do it) but I wouldn't take on a shoveling
*job* for $10 (unless it were quick and easy).


Yeah, but you're probably not a teenager without a regular job either,
are you?

She's not an aerospace engineer laid off after a contract is lost either, but
what's the point?

Banty

"Cathy Weeks" wrote in message
m...
Jon Walters wrote in message
...

First of all -- the kids of this generation are spoiled
and "do no wrong" in the eyes of their parents. They are
right and you are wrong .... especially when a 13 year old
wanted $40 to shovel the snow from my sidewalk recently. I
told the kid I'll give him $10 and he walked away. Good. I'll
wait until it melts before I pay that much.

Ah, so you think just because he's 13, he ought to do it for less than
an amount that he considers worth his time? He doesn't owe you
service. The only thing I can think of is that he might not have been
polite, and that's the only thing that he might have done wrong.

Shoveling snow is hard work, and it's no fun. And if you contract
with an agency that does stuff like that, they charge $75. So you
should either pay up or shut up and do it yourself.

You know what? Although your views are diametrically opposed, you're both
morons and for the same reason. If Jon wants his snow shoveled for less
than $40, he has a perfect right to find someone who will do it. He need
not simply capitulate to the demands of a 13-year-old who *may or may not*
be overpricing his services. Too many, like Cathy here, are conditioned to
accept every offer as a 'take it or leave it' proposition and, further, it
is parents exactly like you that Jon's writing about.

Has it ever occurred to either of you that the best solution may lie
somewhere in between? Maybe the job's not actually worth $40, but maybe
it's worth more than $10, too. So how could we possibly arrive at that best
solution? Read Beth's post. Negotiate an acceptable price for the services
or negotiate the services to suit the price offered. Either that or get
into a snit and eventually pay a lawyer to settle it. I'd hate to see my
professional colleagues starving ...
--
C.R. Krieger
"Ignore 'em, m'dear; they're beneath our dignity." - W.C. Fields

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article m, Brandon
Sommerville says...

On 8 Jan 2004 10:37:49 -0800, Banty wrote:

On the other hand, I used to hire a couple of young babysitters (10 year
old
kids who live on my block) to watch my son for an hour or two, provided
that
their parents were in the house too, in case of emergencies (this being
understood with the parents). When the father of one found that I paid
a 22
year old babysitter, who sometimes does overnights, more than his 10
year old,
he got mad and sent his son for 'the difference'. I sent him back. Dad
called.
I told his Dad that, by design of the babysitting job, his boy takes on
considerably less responsibility than the 22 year old - I'm not relying
on the
10 year old for responsible action in emergencies; he's not on tap to
feed my
son; he doesn't have to get him ready for school. So, that was the end
of his
son babysitting. IOW, "no deal".

It sounds like you are relying on the 10 yr old to get their parents
in an emergency, which would be pretty responsible. The dad didn't
have any right to request more money for past work as it was paid at
the negotiated rate, but he did have the right (and probably the
obligation) to ask that the future rate be the rate of the 22 yr old
since that was what you were willing to pay for hourly services of
equivalent responsibility (safety of your child and all).

No, not really. First of all, it's the *Dad* who had approached me with
the
idea as a way to introduce his sons to some responsibility. That isn't
necessarily the most important point (except to establish that I wasn't
casting
for bargains), but at that time I told him 10 was too young unless my son
can go
to his house but an adult is always around. I gave a price; Dad agreed.

That's a very salient point, as the Dad agreed to be the backup for free,
to get his son the experience. So this makes sense.



Cheers,
Banty

On 8 Jan 2004 16:51:23 -0800, Banty wrote:

No, not really. First of all, it's the *Dad* who had approached me with the
idea as a way to introduce his sons to some responsibility. That isn't
necessarily the most important point (except to establish that I wasn't casting
for bargains), but at that time I told him 10 was too young unless my son can go
to his house but an adult is always around. I gave a price; Dad agreed. So, no,
I don't view this as a babysitting job on the order of someone whose experience
and householding abilities (dinner, off to school) I was buying in the case of
the 22 year old. And Dad didn't bring up any concern that he be paid.

In one case a kid is setting time aside to basically play with another younger
kid; in the other someone is holding down a household for many more hours. This
isn't like a 13 year old clearing a sidewalk vs. a 35 year old clearing a
sidewalk.

In a way. In pure business terms the parents are subsidizing the
child's experience to help them gain job experience. You pay a
reduced rate for training time.

Essentially the parents are responsible for your child and simply
delegating the actual watching to their children.

Except that particular arrangement wasnt' the one offered. I didn't contract
with the dad for services for him to delegate.

If for some reason I thought the boy was an amazingly capable and mature 10 year
old, and I had him come to my house and his services were avaiable for long
hours including overnights - then, yes, the fact that he's 10 and not 22 should
not have affected how I pay him. But that's simply (and impossibly) not the
case. What he could offer was limited, though useful, and I paid him
accordingly, and it was agreed. Until Dad learned through the grapevine what I
paid the 22 year old, whose services, knowledge, experience, and availability
was on a significantly different category in my view. (BTW, one lesson: - don't
talk money with your neighbors - really, sometimes I think I shouldn't even
mention the current price of carrots in the supermarket.)

I just can't believe that they actually had the gall to demand the
same rate after the original rate was fairly negotiated.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.